NEW YORK –Judges elected in New York State will no longer hear cases involving substantial
contributors to their judicial campaigns—an important step toward ensuring both the perception
and reality of a fair, independent judiciary—in accordance with a new judicial assignment rule
announced today by Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman. Implementation of the new rule, which
takes effect July 15, 2011 and applies to campaign contributions made on or after that date, will
make New York's Judiciary the first in the country to systemically address the issue of money in
judicial elections by administrative action. Under the new rule, no case shall be assigned to a
judge, other than in an emergency or as dictated by the rule of necessity, where an individual
attorney, law firm or party in the case contributed $2,500 or more to the judge's election
campaign in the previous two years. Likewise, no assignment would be made in cases where
appearing attorneys, their firms and their clients collectively contributed $3,500 or more to the
judge's election campaign. The new rule affects nearly 1,000 elected judges statewide, or over
70 percent of New York's jurists, including Supreme, County and Surrogate's Court judges.

Since judicial assignments are automatic when contributors exceed the threshold amount,
the new rule eliminates the evidentiary or persuasive burden that must be overcome in order to
secure disqualification based on campaign contributions from a lawyer or party, and obviates the
need for judges to engage in personal decision-making about whether or not to recuse. The new
assignment rule allows judges to hear cases involving contributors when there is no other eligible
judge available to hear the case, in emergencies or when required in the interests of justice. It
also gives the non-contributing party the opportunity to waive the judge's disqualification if the
party believes the judge can be fair and impartial regardless of the fact that the case involves
contributors to his or her campaign.

Creation of the new rule was spurred by growing concern within the legal community and
among scholars, public interest groups and others over the escalating influence of money in
judicial elections—and the ensuing threat to judicial impartiality—as today's judicial candidates
are forced to raise large sums of campaign money. The problem was highlighted in the U.S.
Supreme Court's 2009 decision in Caperton v. Massey Coal, where the Court ruled that a West
Virginia Supreme Court justice should have recused himself from a case involving company
executives from whom he had received very large campaign donations, determining that big
campaign contributions can create "a serious risk of actual bias" in courtroom decisions.

The courts' new assignment rule was approved for public comment in February 2011 by
the Administrative Board of the Courts, which comprises the Chief Judge and the Presiding
Justices of the four Judicial Departments of New York's Appellate Division. Following a period
for public comment, the Administrative Board approved a revised version of the rule at its
meeting earlier this month, with Chief Administrative Judge Ann Pfau appointing a committee of
court administrators and managers to assist in the rule's implementation.

"While campaign contributions are very much part of the constitutionally established
process by which many New York judges are elected, the new rule will go a long way toward
addressing the appearance of conflict that may arise when a judge is assigned a case involving
contributors," said Judge Lippman. "This rule promotes public confidence in the independence,
fairness and impartiality of the Judiciary. It makes New York a leader in national efforts to
address head-on the issue of monetary contributions to judicial campaigns."

Vincent E. Doyle, President of the New York State Bar Association, said, "The new rule
will enhance public confidence in the independence of the Judiciary. The New York State Bar
Association commends the Office of Court Administration for adopting it."

Milton Williams, Jr., Chair of the Fund for Modern Courts, said, "The revised recusal
rule effectively addresses the necessity that, in the area of campaign contributions to judicial
elections, the conduct of judges must appear beyond reproach if the public is to have confidence
in the Judiciary's impartiality. The formal adoption of this rule will mark a genuine step forward
in New York State and put it at the forefront of those states which are concerned about
safeguarding the independence and integrity of the Judiciary. This rule will change the way that
contributors, candidates for elected judicial office and the public view campaign contributions."

"The rule is a well thought-out approach that is necessary to address the perception of the
undue influence of campaign contributions in judicial decision-making. This rule takes important
steps toward protecting the integrity of the judicial process while avoiding judges being forced to
address recusal motions regarding contributions to their campaigns," said Roger Maldonado,
Chair of the New York City Bar Association's Council on Judicial Administration. "We look
forward to working with the Office of Court Administration in the implementation and, if
necessary, improvement of this worthwhile rule."